An unusual spousal support case in G v. G and G, 2026 ONSC 6200

Spousal support disputes often involve disagreements about income, financial need and the length of the relationship. In one recent Ontario case, the court faced a more unusual question: could a husband insist that the couple’s adult son support his mother instead?

In S.G. v. V.G. and P.G., 2026 ONSC 6200, Justice Wassenaar refused that request. The decision also examined disputed earning capacity, the effect of a property settlement, and the choice between monthly and lump-sum support.

The parties’ names are abbreviated in this article.

A Long Marriage and Complicated Family Finances

The spouses married in 1993 and separated in July 2019. Their only child was 31 at the time of trial.

The family had owned several investment properties. Some properties had been transferred to the son, and disagreements developed over those transfers and money he had contributed toward family expenses. The spouses resolved their equalization and property issues before trial, subject to outstanding post-separation adjustments.

The husband acknowledged his wife’s entitlement to spousal support. His position was that he lacked the ability to pay and that their son should be responsible instead. He sought an order requiring the son to pay the wife $4,000 per month.

The Attempt to Make the Son Responsible

The husband relied on an alleged promise by the son to support his mother. He also invoked section 32 of Ontario’s Family Law Act, which provides for support of a parent by an adult child in certain circumstances.

The court found several problems with that argument.

The wife had not brought a support claim against her son. Section 32 had not been properly pleaded, and the husband had not shown how it could provide the relief he wanted. The court also rejected the suggestion that the alleged promise could shift the husband’s spousal support obligation onto the son.

Justice Wassenaar described the issue directly:

“It seems to me the father is seeking to assign an obligation to his son, based on the father’s alleged inability to pay.”

The court refused to order the son to pay spousal support. This was a ruling on the husband’s attempted transfer of responsibility; a parent’s claim for support from an adult child is a separate legal issue. The broader claims concerning the property transfers were stayed.

Looking Beyond the Reported Income

The husband proposed using an annual income of $60,000 to calculate support. His 2025 T4 showed approximately that amount, and he attributed the reduction in earnings to health problems.

The court recognized those health concerns but assessed his income for ongoing support at $90,000. It considered his previous earnings, the income stated in his affidavit, credibility concerns about his financial evidence, and the potential for remote work and accommodations.

The wife’s position was that she had no income and could no longer work. The court considered evidence of her physical and mental health limitations and accepted that full-time employment was beyond her capacity. However, her experience in different types of work supported imputing $10,000 annually to her.

The resulting support calculation therefore used the court’s assessment of each spouse’s earning capacity and circumstances.

Property Division and the Form of Support

The court found both compensatory and needs-based grounds for support. During the marriage, the wife had primarily managed the household and cared for their son when he was young.

She was also receiving a substantial equalization payout. That capital remained relevant to the analysis, but the court found that housing costs would largely consume it. Her property settlement therefore did not eliminate her support entitlement on these facts.

The wife sought $531,154 in prospective lump-sum support, or alternatively a combination of a lump sum and monthly payments. She argued that a clean break was appropriate and expressed concern that the husband might move to another jurisdiction.

The court explained that “very unusual circumstances” are not required for a lump-sum award. It nevertheless concluded that monthly payments were appropriate here. A large lump sum would consume a significant portion of the husband’s available capital, and both spouses had ongoing health issues. Periodic support could accommodate future changes in their means and needs.

The husband was ordered to pay $2,917 per month for an indefinite period, starting November 3, 2026. The order specified no fixed end date.

The Retroactive Claim

The wife requested $153,564 in retroactive support, starting in March 2022.

The court found that the necessary legal analysis supporting that earlier date had not been provided. It instead selected November 2023, when the husband filed his application and acknowledged her entitlement.

After calculating the amounts for the relevant periods and allowing credits for $7,500 paid in 2024 and $36,000 released from the husband’s property proceeds in 2025, the court awarded $62,598 in retroactive spousal support.

That start date depended on the record and arguments before the court. The decision does not make the application date the automatic starting point for every retroactive claim.

The judgment also required the wife to pay $50,400 in occupation rent and specified property expenses. Those obligations were separate from the support awards.

Spousal Support Lawyer Ottawa

This decision illustrates why a spousal support claim requires careful attention to the evidence. Reported earnings, health limitations, property settlements and earlier payments can all affect the outcome.

Our office assists with spousal support negotiations and court proceedings. Contact us to discuss your circumstances and the options available.

Are you looking for an Ottawa Spousal Support Lawyer? Click here for a consultation.